Evolution of Humankind

Evolution of Humankind:

Qur’anic Concepts and Scientific Theories

By Shah Manzoor Alam

The Qur’an endorses the basic concept of evolution, and both scientists and the Qur’an agree that humankind is the limax of creation. The scientists claim that humans are at the apex of an evolutionary process. The Qur’an declares humankind to be a unique creation of Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’la), superior to all living creatures and divinely gifted with unmatched qualities.

Scientists assume that the living state arose from the non-living through biogenesis that has now ceased to operate to operate. They consider the evolution of life both simple and complex as the outcome of errors, accidents, and chance and not due to any divine design.

Charles Darwin’s theory of human evolution in his book Origin of Species, highlighted the glaring inaccuracies in the account on creation in the Book of Genesis. Darwin advocated a mechanistic and automatic system of ‘Natural Selection’ leading to evolution of living beings with no room for divine guidance and design in the production of living plants and animals, including humankind on earth.

Overcome by their firm faith in Darwin’s ideas, the succeeding generation of biologists and anthropologists have approached Islam through the same preconceived notions and refuse to accepts any other viewpoint. Darwin’s theory places humankind in the company of apes simply because they have common anatomical features. Evolutionists claim that Homo sapiens descended from Oreopithecus (Tuscany), Ramapithecus (Punjab, India), and Kenyapithecus (East Africa) who lived around 10-13 million years ago. They say that Home sapiens are direct descendants of the Southern Man-Apes, the Australopithecus who lived at least five to one million years ago. This Australopithecus had two species: robustus (Parabthropus) and africanus (transvaalensis) and humans descended from the africanus. This gave birth to Homo habilis, followed by Homo erectus, eventually leading to Homo sapiens some 300,000 years ago. However, the latest finds are now placing Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in the same era.

The scientists say that since the emergence of Homo sapiens, phyletic evolution in humans has stopped. Controversies that exist over the various finds and theories render the entire evolution idea debatable. The scientists believe in the role played by natural selection but cannot explain how their ape-man shifted to walking on feet alone. The pace of evolution assumed by Darwin would require over a million years for any evolution.

The entire theory is based on fragmentary evidence consisting of specimens of skulls and scattered bones. No one has found a complete skeleton yet. None of the ancestors that have been assigned to humans survive. At best scientists are drawing definitive conclusions from inconclusive evidence, merely based on probabilities. The missing links are too many and evidence leads to such conflicting directions that human evolution cannot be conclusively established.

Creation of Humankind: The Qur’anic Concept – it was over 1,400 years ago, that the Qur’an proclaimed the concept of the evolution of life from inorganic substances. According to the Qur’an, three distinct categories of living beings — animals, humans and jinn originated from three distinctly different inorganic substances. The jinn were formed out of fire long before the formation of atmospheric gases and terrestrial life. Allah says: “We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape. And the jinn we had created before from the fire of scorching winds.” (Qur’an 15 : 26-27) again is 55 : 14-15, it is stated that Allah created the human being from sounding clay as the one used in pottery-making, and he created jinn from fire free from smoke. The Qur’an (21 : 130), declaring “We have created from water everything…” clearly endorses that all terrestrial living beings have evolved out of water.

The Qur’an, however, distinguishes between the evolution of animal life and the creation of humankind. It points out that animals continued to evolve out of inorganic compounds formed in water, whereas humankind ceased to do so. Allah “has created every animal from water:” Of them there are some that creep on their bodies; some that walk on two legs, some that walk on four, verily Allah has power over all things.” (24 : 45).

Humankind shares common origin with the animals to the extent it also originated from water, but did not evolve out of it. It contrast to the animals and jinn, Adam was created from a clay like mold or clay like inorganic compound, as the one used in making pottery.

All living beings whether terrestrial or celestial are created out of three different inorganic compounds. Consequently each of them possess distinctly different growth characteristics, evolutionary processes and life cycles. In the course of time because of distinct divine design, the inorganic compounds leading to the animal world and humankind were separated. Despite the anatomical similarities, humans and animals differ in physical forms and behavior. Moreover, the human intellect distinguishes him from animals and jinn.

The Qur’an does not support the hypothesis of simultaneous evolution of humankind in varying geographical areas. Instead, Adam (Allayhi as Salaam) was the prime ancestor of all humankind. “It is he who created you from a single person.” (4 : 1). While Adam’s mate was made out his mold and the two were the original progenitors of Homo sapiens or humankind. Allah says “from this single soul created of like nature his mate and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. (4 : 1).

In 32 : 7-8, it is stated that Allah “began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay and made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised.” Despite this humble beginning, humankind and animals are not lumped together as part of the overall evolutionary process. Man, being the climax of his creation, was made out of “quintessence (of clay and “in the best of molds.” (23 : 12). To distinguish humans from the rest of the living being Allah “fashioned him in due proportion and breathed into him something of his spirits.” (32 : 9).

Contrary to the claim of the “natural selection” theorists, the Qur’an is clear how humans were gifted with power to read and write, qualities that placed them even superior than the angels who were asked to prostrate before Adam, the first human being. Allah “taught Adam the nature of all things; then he placed them before the angels, “tell me the nature of these if you are right. They said glory to thee of knowledge we have none save what thou hast taugh us.” (2 : 31-32. In the first verses revealed to prophet Muhammed ( salla Allah ‘alayhi wa sallam) he was told to “proclaim and thy lord is most bountiful – he who taught (the use of) the pen, taught man that he knew not…”(96 : 3 – 5) Similarly, another unique gift, the power to articulate and speak is mentioned in LV : 3-4: “He has created man. He has taught him speech (and given him intelligence).”

Manifestation of Divine Creative Power in Birds and Fish: The qualities that Allah has endowed upon the animal world are equally revealing of his supreme creative powers. For instance the migratory prowess of the birds and fish. Birds often navigate and fly four to five thousand miles during changes in weather, guided by celestial objects, the sun and the stars. Such skills cannot be explained through an evolutionary or natural selection process and the only answer is that these are divinely endowed.

The fish are endowed with similar skills of travel and directional orientation. The eels are an excellent example. They are born in the Sargasso Sea and at age two and a half to three years they swim upstream in fresh water to stay there for 10-15 years when they transform to silver eels and finally return to their spawning grounds in Sargasso Sea to die.

The Qur’an endorses the concept of evolution from non-living to living and that all living objects have originated from water. However, it does not endorse the theory that humans evolved from animals.

No theory can be valid unless it answers basic issues. The evolutionary theory cannot satisfactorily answer that skills like human intelligence, speech, reading and writing were acquired through a process of natural selection. This theory is simply an excuse for denying divine involvement in the creation. The scientists dismiss humankind as product of a self-generating automotive process whereas Allah has designated humankind as his supreme creation capable of acquiring knowledge of the unknown both on earth and in space and altering its environment to its needs. The immense intellectual and technological achievements of humankind stand as an eloquent testimony to correctness of the Qur’anic concept regarding the status of humans as distinct from animals and angels.

The Qur’an (27 : 105) is emphatic that it provides the truth and scientists will only discover the truth if they direct their research in the directions furnished by this book.

this is yet another try by the molvis to frighten a modern common man away from islam, by making up illogical, unbelievable, unscientific, and unislamic theories, which are not related to the koran in any way.

no sane human being can believe in this essay.


So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

Hereby i will put down 6 clear and very very strong evidences in the favour of evolution and against the essay written above:

1) evidence from similarity:

This evidence is based on the reseblence which human beings and some other animals show between themselves. this strongly suggest that they must have evolved from some common ancestor.

2) evidence from homolgy:

Human beings resemble other animals not only in the genaral plan but also in other structural details. despite the diversity of function, the anatomy of forelimbs of
a) bird
b) dog
c) whale
d) bat
e) human beings
is remarkably similar. this can only be explained if we assume all of the above animals evolved from a common ancestor.

3) evidence from vestigial organs:

vestigial organs those organs present in the body, which serve no purpose at all. here are a few examples:
a) human beings have an appendix which serves no funvtion, while in rabbits, it is important in digestion.
b) nictitating membrane in the eyes of human beings has no purpose at all. the same mebrane is very important in birds, and serves the purpose of cleansing of eye ball.
c) human beings have ear muscles which are useless for them. on the contrary, dogs and horses use their ear muscles to move their ears to collect sounds from various directions.
the above examples show that some organs of human body are USELESS, they are present just because other animals possess them too. their presence can only explained if we assume that they have a common ancestor.

4) evidence from comparative biochemistry:

The study of biochemistry in different animals and plants has revealed a similarity among the various organisms. the amino acid sequences in the proteins, and the remarkable similarity in the composition of DNA and RNA have confirmed that all living organisms are related to each other.
similarly, most vertebrates share the same hormones!

5) evidence from embryology:

The development of the embryo in all vertebrates show striking similarities, particularly during the early stages of their development.

human beings pass through a stage during the development of the embryo, when it possesses gill arches! later on, on further development, they disappear.
only fishes develop gills!
why do human embryo possess gill arches then?
is it not but a CLEAR evidence of evolution from simple aquatic animals into human beings?

this theory which tells us, that the development of the embryo repeats the revolutionary history of the species, is known as the theory of capitulation.

=================================================

now that i have posted six clear and unbreakable evindences in against the above essay, it is clear that the idea presented in this essay is NOT from the koran.

if we associate this essay to the koran, then we will have to believe that koran is false. this can not be accepted.

so if you believe in this essay, then it means you also have to believe koran is false.

in order to save the koran, you have to let go this strange theory presented above!
please be rational!

[This message has been edited by jewels of insignificance (edited April 05, 1999).]

Bravo Jewels ;)

Jewels of Insignificance

The impressive array of information that you have bombarded us with is wholly based on scientific reasoning yet it would be a quantum leap to imply that these findings are harmonious with Quranic ideas of creation or as you put it evolution. I do not endorse the article by Abdullah for I am not sure if the author is an authority on the subject. If possible can you provide any direct references from either the quran or the hadeeth to support evolution. Mere deductive reasoning is not adequate to establish a theory as a fact.

iqadeer,

from your above essay, you have made it clear that no sane and rational human being can believe in your version of islam.

as for my version, i have already posted my koranic theory of evolution.
please read " adam , not the first human being" for more about evolution. i will try to post a more detailed essay very very soon inshallah.

Jewels why do you continually allege that no "sane individual can believe" the essay Abdullah has posted here. The first half of the essay, which discusses evolution theory is completely accurate. Many very "sane" individuals including both scientists and religious scholars would agree.

There is a debate occurring, and there always has been a debate, regarding the validity of evolutionary theory. The scientists who are working to piece together evidence have not completed their research - it is ongoing. Those who oppose the evolutionist stance provide another perspective. A perspective which may or may not be entirely incorrect. But a perspective nevertheless. The debate is not over and continues to rage in universities and scientific journals. Evidence both for and against evolution is mounting.

Science admits its limitations. No theory is beyond proof. By labeling those who disagree with evolution "irrational" and "insane" you negate this basic premise of science - its imperfection, through its very own admission. Nothing in science is perfect, a theory accepted today, maybe refuted tomorrow.

This is the danger in elevating science to the position of divine revelation. Divine revelation is unalterable and static. It maybe be interpreted and re-interpreted. But its basic message stays intact. On the other hand science is dynamic, always in flux. A theory of science accepted today and confirmed in interpretations of the Qur'an - maybe thrown out by scientists tomorrow for a better even more convincing theory. Do we than throw out our revelation as well? Or do we have to accept our mistake and reinterpret the text?

Either choice you make - you have to accept the fact that their exists a debate in scientific circles, therefore there will always exist a debate in religious circles. Some scholars predicted that there would come a time when science would meld with religion, to become the ** true ** religion. I think that time is coming. Its unfortunate that we require the confirmation of western science to solidify and re-confirm our own faith and dispel our doubts.

Achtung ;)

dear achtung!

my five evidences were based on what is VISIBLY EVIDENT. my five points, are not scientific theories, but simple human observations!

is it sicence which tells you you have five fingers in your hand? or is it common sense? my points are based on common sense more than on science!

can someone disbelieve in the counting method and start saying he has 63 fingers in his hand? he can very well say that ,methods of counting may change, i do not believe in them! but will you not call such a person a fool?

so if someone of you wants to back up this theory presented in the above essay, then he should very well be able to answer ALL FIVE of common human observations that i have presented!

and of you leave science and talk about the koran, you lose that way too! because koran believes in evolution! and i have proved it in the other thread.

Jewels,

Your argument is based on what is "visibally evident" according to western science. Not common sense. These concepts are discussed in light of evolutionary theory and are taught in introductory biology courses. These discoveries were marked by scientists, including amongst them Charles Darwin.

Many were based on sheer observation. Pieced together they form evolutionary theory. But as Abdulla's post mentioned:

"The...theory is based on fragmentary evidence...At best scientists are drawing
definitive conclusions from inconclusive evidence, merely based on probabilities. The
missing links are too many and evidence leads to such conflicting directions that human evolution cannot be conclusively established."

The theory is still debatable. In terms of drawing an analogy to mathematics (ie. counting your fingers) and science. My understanding is that mathematics is more of a language than a science. It is perhaps the only universal language around the world.

I'm not certain how mathematical theories work, I would think they are proven without a doubt (or with very minimal doubt). On the other hand, scientific theories are never 100% and the theory of evolution is far from being 100%. What if tomorrow it is disproved - what will you do about your belief in the Qur'an and Islam, will you than claim that the Qur'an is wrong? The theory of evolution will be discarded by scientists if this occurs, will you discard the Qur'an?

Achtung ;)

The only thing that is absolutely right is that there is no thing as Natural Selection. We as ahmadis believe that guided evolution took place and Allah was the one who was guiding evolution. This point is explained in great detail in the book “revelation, rationality, truth and knowledge” but as it is very long so I can’t post it here.

One example could be of Mosquito. It can’t happen with blind evolution.


MIRZA YASIR

[email protected]       

Homepages
mirzayasir.paklinks.com
pafcollchaklala.paklinks.com
Homeopathy Message Board
This is a message board which I created. Here you can post your diseases along with your symptoms and get a homeopathic prescription in 2-3 days. Its Free! Its amazing! Try it.
http://mirzahomeomain.paklinks.com

So it isn't the western scientific concept of Evolution. Interesting...fair enough.

"Guided evolution" is different from Darwin's evolution.

Achtung ;)

dear achtung,

i did not claim to favour darwin's thoery, nor any theory else. my evidences were based on COMMON HUMAN OBSERVATION, which is as obvious as five fingers of a hand, regardless of it being western, eastern or nothern!

someone writes an essay saying
" there are 63 fingers in our hand"

and defends it by saying ,
" the method of counting you use is developed by western mathematicians."
will you not call him a fool?

be rational!


So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)

Jewels, please, I am being rational.

Counting is common sense, its universally accepted. Its perhaps the only universally accepted language in the world, as I've mentioned in my previous post.

But evolution on the other hand, even Darwin's groundbreaking version of it is debatable, it is not held as "common sense" - even the scientific community is divided. And your version of "common human observation" too is a theory - a theory which is highly debatable.

Achtung ;)

dear achtung,

if you are being rational, then come up with an essay where you break all my points thru logic! when you plainly refuse to believe in reasoning, and insist on blind faith, then you can not call your behaviour "rational".

however, please note, that i do NOT believe in darwin's theory of evolution. also note that darwin's theory of evolution is unacceptable in its original form, and has been majorly modified to make the modern theory of evolution. i do not claim to believe in the modern theory of evolution either. i do not have enough knowledge to back such theories. nor am i wanting to support them. i merely use 11 senses, extra-censory-perception, and koran, and am not willing to believe in any theory which clashes with the 12 factors i use.

my only point is, if the five observations i posted are not true, write an essay in reply, and prove them false thru logic. only then will your behaviour be rational, in my opinion.

to be more clear, heres the story:
1) u post an essay
2) it is in clash with general observation
3) i point it out

now in order to make your approach rational, what you can do is, write an essay in which you either try to point out how your article is not in clash with them, or logically prove my observations to be wrong.

you have repeatdly said that the observations i posted above, are not belived by some scientists. try pointing out which scientists they are, or atleast how thy prove their claim thru logic.

unless you do that, you have no right to call your approach "rational".

Well it all depends on whose definition of "rationality" we use.

What is clearly rational to a Christian is not so clear to a Jew. We have to just respect the fact that different interpretations of creation theory exist.

We can subject these theories to critical tests - but the problem is this - who evaluates the theories validity, on what basis is the evaluation made, who has the authority to make such a decision?

Do you propose that we use science as the proxy for evaluating the theories?

Your theory, which you believe is not associated with evolution theory as understood by western science - is definitely influenced by modern evolution theory. Without the discoveries of Darwin, you would not be able to puzzle together your theory. Your theory is an outgrowth of evolution theory, influenced by its findings, weather you would like to believe it or not.

I don't want to refute either your theory or Abdullah's post, or Darwin's theory. I separate my religion from western science. Evolution is one of those concepts which is not proven beyond a doubt. The Qur'an on the other hand is a divine text. It is the complete perfect word of God without a doubt. I do not require science to re-affirm my faith in God. If the Qur'an does not comply with scientific theory, than I contend that there maybe a flaw in the scientific theory, not the Qur'an.

There are many verses in the Qur'an which appear to confirm what science is just now discovering (as you have argued). But to solidify scientific theories (which are subject to change) with the use of the Qur'an, is to elevate science to the position of God. I cannot do that. Evolution maybe completely in sync with the Qur'an, on the other hand it may not be. Perhaps in the future the theory of evolution will be discarded. But the Qur'an will remain intact.

Achtung ;)

dear achtung,

it is extremely depressing for me to see that despite the fact that i have repeatedly made it clear that i am not testing the above theory thru science, you are bent upon associating those believes to me which i am not even aware of! i have repeatedly told you that i DO NOT support any theory of evolution, i am just talking about possible defects in the one posted above!

i have extremely low knowledge on any evolution theory whatsoever, may it be western or eastern, and therefore do not have any clear concept of how evolution could have taken place.

you are constantly saying that my theory is impressed by darwins theory or the modern theory of evolution, however i have NOT posted any such theory anywhere in this forum which says human beings evolve from animals. nor do i completly believe in any such theory! although i repeatedly prove from the koran that human beings underwent an evolution, i do not have any idea HOW they underwent evolution, and whether they have evolved from animals or seperately.

So i have an open mind for any theory which explains how this evolution took place. for me, reading and analyzing abdullah's theory was as important as reading and analyzing the modern evolution thoery. i am equally willing to believe in both of them.

however, when i analyzed abdullah's theory, i found some possible defects in it. these defects were NOT about western science but of common observation. because of these possible defects i would have rejected this theory because it did not appear rational to me.

for example, my first point was similarity of human beings, monkeys and chimpanzees. what has this to do with science?? even an illiterate person can note that human beings possess a similarity with chimpanzees. as abdullah's theory did not explain this phenomenon i rejected it!
the same goes for all other points i gave.
are you trying to say that a new scintific theory will come and decide that "human beinfs DO NOT look like chimpanzees, monkeys or bears"????
as you people have completely refused to bring about ANY reasoning in this discussion whatsoever, i have no choice but to disbelieve in the theory.

for me, ratioanlity is important. koran talks about it. it has been repeatedly said in the koran, that human beings can only recognize allah by their ability of reasoning. wherever allah has talked about how he created man or universe, plants or animals, he has always pointed out that these things hold evidences of my presence, for those who have the wisdom to recognize them. allah tells man to be rational, so that man can recognize god! koran repeatedly emphasizes that no one can reach allah without rationality. those who follow the ways of their forefathers, inherit the believes of their forefathers, without testing them thru reasoning, have been the followers of iblees!

so if i somehow get to read some other thoery of evolution which is in accordance with the koran, and my perception, i would at once belive in it.
but i am extremely sorry to say this is no the same for the theory you posted above.

Do you propose that we use science as the proxy for evaluating the theories?
- no, not "science" , but common sense!

who evaluates the theories validity, on what basis is the evaluation made, who has the authority to make such a decision?

  • the one who reads it, must unbiasedly evaluate its validity, he should make this evaluation on the basis of his ability to reason. then he has all the authority to make a decision as to whether this theory should be believed in, or rejected.

i was merely trying to evaluate this theory thru my ability to reason, whatsoever of that god has given me. i had serious doubts, and i questioned them. you people refused to answer to my doubts!

but one question i never asked is, who gave you the right to decide that the theory presented above is directly in accordance with the koran?

if you have a right to decide that your theory is in direct accordance with the koran, do i not have an equal right to say this is NOT in accordance with the koran?

my point is, koran talks about rationality! prophet mohammad advises the ummah, " apnay dil say fatwa lo". for me, any such theory which does not pass thru the little whole called logic, is NOT related to koran or islam!

i care two boots about science!

Jewels you claim that you are not using science in your arguments but rather your own "common sense". Yet I can see clear scientific proofs in your theory, proofs utilized by evolutionary biologists to support their theory of evolution.

If indeed human intuition and "common sense" would lead us to believe in the points you mention above (i.e. similarities in physical characteristics, presence of vestigial organs, biochemistry, etc.), we would have realized them long ago. However, these notions did not appear in scientific (or any other) literature until very recently. Specifically after the work of scientists like Charles Darwin who shook the foundations of the scientific world with his groundbreaking book describing notions of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" and supporting these claims through the proofs, some of which you've mentioned above.

You are claiming that, had Darwin not published his work, these proofs would be self-evident. Yet they were neither evident nor discussed readily until he and others began working on these theories. By saying that you are not influenced by scientific theory, you are in effect claiming that you would have come up with the proofs mentioned above on your own - you would have been the Darwin of modern day. People would discuss "Jewelism" in Universities, rather than "Darwinism".

Even though you may not realize it, you are influenced by evolutionary theory. There is nothing wrong with that - in many cases the theory makes sense. We all build on our base of knowledge. And nobody can say that Evolution is not compatible with religion. I think this is what you are trying to argue. And I agree with you. The debate over "creationism" and "evolution" is an artificial debate. The two can coincide, specifically if we do not take the meaning of portions of divine revelation literally, but rather metaphorically.

Scientists are cautious though. Science is never complete. It is always testable and refutable. Science by its very definition is evolving, changing everyday, adding new layers and taking away layers, which are no longer of use. The Qur'an on the other hand is the complete, intact, and unalterable word of God for Muslims. I believe it to is a living book. It can be re-interpreted through the ages and provide us with new solutions and new meanings every time we open it up. So evolutionary theory perhaps not clearly present to believers hundreds of years ago, may start to manifest itself in the pages of the Qur'an today. But like scientists we have to be cautious when we draw conclusions. We cannot elevate science to the position of the divine. We can draw parallels between verifiable scientific proofs and Qur'anic verses which seem to support these proofs, but when doing so we should perhaps tack on a disclaimer, explaining that this verse ** seems ** to support this scientific theory. Because tomorrow that scientific theory may change but the revelation will remain the same. We can discard the theory, but not the revelation.

Jewels wrote: "So I have an open mind for any theory which explains how this evolution took place. For me, reading and analyzing Abdullah's theory was as important as reading and analyzing the modern evolution theory. I am equally willing to believe in both of them."

Ok, this is fair, I agree - I think this was the point I was trying to make as well. That we have to be open minded and allow other interpretations to exist alongside our own. I read Abdullah's post and found that the first few paragraphs, which discussed the validity of evolutionary theory, were accurate. Not because they refuted evolutionary theory, but because they demonstrated that the theory still had flaws (like all scientific theories). It presented a different opinion in an ongoing debate.

Jewels wrote: "For me, rationality is important. Koran talks about it. It has been repeatedly said in the
Koran, that human beings can only recognize Allah by their ability of reasoning. Wherever Allah has talked about how he created man or universe, plants or animals, he has always pointed out that these things hold evidences of my presence, for those who have the wisdom to recognize them. Allah tells man to be rational, so that man can recognize god! Koran repeatedly emphasizes that no one can reach Allah without rationality. Those who follow the ways of their forefathers, inherit the believes of their forefathers, without testing them through reasoning, have been the followers of Iblees!"

I agree completely. The problem is this: It comes down to whose rationality and who is the authority. This is the main problem plaguing the Muslim community today. Who is the authority? Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, Maliki, Ghazali, Ibn Tamiyah, Barelvi, Hassan Al Bana, Abdul Wahab, or should we get even more abstract and use western intellectuals and definitions of rationality. Unfortunately rationality for the most part is dead in the Muslim world. The jurists of previous centuries have completed the task, many Muslims believe. It is no longer useful to rationalize. The greatest rationalists of the Muslim age were the Mutazallites - I can't remember what exactly happened to them, but I believe they were killed. I agree with you though, Ijtehad is important, using our own logic and reasoning to come to conclusions, but it has become so taboo in the Muslim world - it is probably the biggest obstacle to progress.

Jewels wrote: "But one question I never asked is, who gave you the right to decide that the theory presented above is directly in accordance with the Koran?"

I never said it was in accordance with the Koran. I have no right to say it is correct or not correct, Allah knows best. I can only provide my own argument (that is the debate we are having in a separate thread from this one though).

Jewels wrote: "If you have a right to decide that your theory is in direct accordance with the Koran do I not have an equal right to say this is NOT in accordance with the Koran?"

Of course you do. I never said that you did not. My point was more one of respecting others, it had nothing really to do with the debate. I supported Abdullah's post because I can see it being a viable theory, which some people believe in. It was the manner in which you criticized Abdullah's theory that I did not appreciate, not the fact that you criticized it (this was discussed in a separate thread from this one also and was resolved, lets just forget about it now).

Jewels wrote: "My point is, Koran talks about rationality! Prophet Muhammad advises the ummah, "apnay dil say fatwa lo". For me, any such theory which does not pass thru the little whole called logic, is NOT related to Koran or Islam!"

Again whose logic, mine, yours, Abdullah's. I think all three are different. What's logical to you maybe very illogical to me. The fact that I don't believe that Christ is the Son of God for example, may seem very illogical to a Christian, but to me it is very logical. It's all subjective.

Jewels wrote: "I care two boots about science."

Why? Science is important. Science can exist side by side with the Qur'an. The Qur'an can and has verified many scientific proofs (as you've even mentioned). Science is important. The problem I was having with your theory, we are debating in the other thread - "Why Adam was not the first human being" - we will continue the debate there. I think a certain elements of scientific evolutionary theory is present in the Qur'an. I've heard convincing arguments describing the presence of evolutionary proofs in the Qur'an. Yours is different because it claims that Adam was not the first man (we will discuss this further in the other thread, when I get time to respond).

Note: I will be around and on GupShup for the next few weeks, but I will be responding less periodically. It is the end of the school year and its a busy time for me. After two weeks I'll lose my Internet connection and will no longer be able to come here to discuss issues.

Achtung ;)

Assalam Alaikum

Abdullah,

Excellent essay, where did you get it from?

jewels,

The appendix does serve a function. It releases antibiotics into the intestinal area. However I don't know about the rest though.

"...Organs of extreme perfection

The human eye for example is an extremely complex organ. For it to be functional, it has to depend on instant co-ordination of all its parts (lens, retina etc.). It either works with all the parts in the eye functioning as in a assembly line or stops working when communication is broken at any one point. It is impossible to imagine an evolving eye, as during the stages of 'evolution' it would be of no help to its possessor. What survival value would an incomplete eye have? Why would nature select a non-functioning organ, repeatedly through many generations? Or did it come into being as a unit, complete and functioning? What is the fossil evidence?

The first animals with most complex eyes were found - not in the Cenozoic era, which is known as the age of mammals but in the lower Palaeozoic era, in Cambrian period when invertebrates were the only animals present and vertebrates had not appeared as yet. Squids and octopuses had eyes that were optically identical to complex vertebrates. As long ago as Cambrian times, they had eyes that were fitted with cornea, lens and retina. There were few differences between this invertebrate model of the eye and the vertebrate eye which appeared with the early vertebrates in the following 100 million years. The question naturally arises as to how did some invertebrates come to acquire such highly advanced eyes, so early in geological history? And where are the fossils of those animals through which this slow process of evolution proceeded?. Why is it that fossils have always yielded only finished products, seldom an incomplete organ? The fossil have again gone missing where evolutionists want them most.

Let us examine another difficult-to-explain example. The Surinam toad is mentioned by Huxley and Wells as an example of how a land-based amphibian solves the problem of no water. The female toad lays her eggs on her back by means of a long oviduct. After the eggs are laid, the skin on her back grows around the eggs and forms a nursery for the young.

One would have great difficulty explaining how such a toad evolved. Perhaps a Darwinian would say that this behaviour, and the physiologic structures associated with it, evolved at a time when water was scarce and the need for such behaviour was necessary. However, three different phenomena must have evolved or the Surinam toad would have become extinct. First, the long oviduct must have evolved; secondly, the skin of the back must have become capable of surrounding the eggs or they would have dried out rapidly on the toad's back. Finally, the two physiological structures would have been useless, unless the toad used them properly.

There is absolutely no reason for either of these structures to have evolved by themselves. A toad with no water to lay its eggs in and possessing only a long oviduct is just as doomed as a toad lacking an oviduct whose back can form a nursery but who is unable to get the eggs onto the back. The offspring of a toad possessing only two of the three needed facilities would die. This is an example of a structure which can't be evolved by small modifications. It all must appear at once or it is useless.

Another toad which also lives in a waterless environment, solves the problem differently. The female lays her eggs in the mouth of the male whose vocal sacs become a nursery. Once again, there are several items which must have evolved simultaneously or the whole thing would have been useless. The female must have learned to lay her eggs in the mouth. The male had to evolve behaviour which prevented him from eating the eggs, as well as acquiring the ability to change his vocal sacs into a nursery. The lack of any individual item would have doomed the species.

In both of the above cases, the only conceivable impetus to develop these structures would be the drying up of the water in the area in which the toad lived. The toad would not need the structures and behaviour millions of years after the water was gone; it would need it immediately, before the water was dried up since the tadpole must develop in a watery environment. The changes must come rapidly or it would be too late.

There are a host of other organs such as the mammalian ear, lateral line in fish, feathers in birds, haemoglobin in blood, spinnerets in the spider and many other unique features found among living organisms that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. These organs of extreme perfection gave Mr. Darwin shudders and his misgivings were not unjustified....."

[This message has been edited by Mudasser (edited April 09, 1999).]

Assalam O Alaikum

Brother Mudassar

Sorry brother, i am unable to provide you the exact site address, i was looking for some related matter and found, copied and pasted here. Next time inshallah i will try to mention the source also.

Assalam O Alaikum